Why the Second Amendment Should Not Give Citizens the Right to Own Assault Weaponry Persuasive - Essay Example

The Second amendment should not give private citizens the right to own guns as this right has been continuously abused by individuals and criminals alike.The second amendment therefore brings about a huge debate regarding the intended objective of this amendment…

Extract of sampleWhy the Second Amendment Should Not Give Citizens the Right to Own Assault Weaponry Persuasive

Download file to see previous pages...
The second amendment therefore brings about a huge debate regarding the intended objective of this amendment. Some Americans and scholars alike are of the belief that this amendment brought forth an individual constitutional right for American citizens to keep arms (Maier 21). On the other hand, other scholars are of the opinion that the language of the amendment, with focus on the words regulated militia was intended at trying to restrict the Unites States Congress from legislating against a US state’s right to defending itself (Whitney, 42). On the idea that the amendment’s intention was to give Americans the constitutional right to arm themselves (Maier 21), the constitution of the United States tries to restrain legislating against citizen’s right to possess firearms. This school of thought explains that an amendment to denying citizens the right to own firearms would in fact be unconstitutional and therefore null and void (Halbrook 36). On the other hand, the school of thought advocating that the amendment was meant at restraining the US congress from legislating against the rights of US states to defend themselves argues that the local, federal and state bodies are the ones that are entitled the right of bearing arms. This effectively locks out private citizens and individual from the right to bear arms (Whitney, 42). In the case of Unites states, V. Miller before the Supreme Court of the US in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens do not enjoy the right to arm themselves and thus interpreted the Second amendment to mean that the US congress could in fact come in and regulate against the rights of private citizens owning firearms (Halbrook 44). The above case became a precedent until the year 2008 when another case on the same issue of the second amendment came before the US Supreme Court again. In the 2008 case, the court, in the case of District of Columbia against Heller determined that the constitution of the US had indeed established the right to own firearms by individual citizens of the United States. As the plaintiff in the case, Heller was in court to argue against the legality of the ban on handguns in the state of Washington DC. This piece of legislation had been around for the last 32 years. The US Supreme Court therefore found the law to be unconstitutional and a violation of the right that US citizens have to bear arms. In addition to the ruling, the court also ruled that the US constitution could in no way refuse to let mentally ill as well as criminals bear arms. The ruling brought about increased debate as to the real meaning of the second amendment and what the framers of this legislation had in mind when they developed this piece of legislation. In the year 2010 in a case also related to the second amendment, in McDonald against Chicago city, the Supreme Court decided to adopt the argument that the second amendment was aimed at ensuring citizens enjoyed the right to arm themselves (Halbrook 78). The court determined that the second amendment meant that American citizens enjoyed the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense. One judge dissented on the ruling, but a majority of the judges and indeed the ruling was that the hand gun ban of Chicago that prohibited private individuals from bearing firearms was against the spirit of the constitution (Whitney 22). According the ruling of the Supreme Court in the year 2008 and 2010, the aim of the second amendment was to enable private individuals bear arms. This is emboldened in the bill of rights
...Download file to see next pagesRead More

(First Amendment) What is important to note is that while this amendment grants the rights to protest, it does clarify that it is to be accomplished in a peaceable manner. The actions of the group of Teaching Fellows and Monique can be viewed as having the intent to cause a civil disturbance and promote violence being done to another.

The controversial Amendment states, in full, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (“The Constitution,” 2008). The Founding Fathers added the Second and the other nine Amendments, collectively called the Bill of rights, to further clarify the rights guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution.

The Amendment has created a lot of controversy with regard to the debate on the issue of gun control. According to proponents for stricter gun control, the amendment seeks to protect the rights of States to uphold militia groups. However, the opponents of the regulations respond by asserting that the aim of the amendment was to guard an individual right (Barnett 2).

Murders involving the use of rifles in the USA are numerous on a yearly basis and have witnessed the assassinations of high-profile personalities from concealed locations.All gun- related deaths in the United States through suicides account for two-thirds. It is estimated that more than 31,000 people in the USA die yearly from gunshot wounds.

Hospitality as a second career.
A large number of individuals over 40 chose hospitality as their second career. A major reason behind this is that it is often (wrongly) assumed that hospitality requires little formal education and that informal practice is sufficient.

Yes, our topic of discussion is based on Superstitions in its purest form.
For many people, superstition is a way of life and nothing takes place or materializes till every aspect is well taken care of. For others and especially the

The author states that in the recent case of the District of Columbia versus Heller, the District of Columbia stuck down a ban on hand guns in a five to four supreme court ruling. Prior to the ruling, it was not lawful to carry an unlicensed firearm, specifically a handgun. The ruling in favor of legalizing handguns was groundbreaking.